Zebralight SC53c and SC53w

Tixx

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
1,975
A 200 cut in lumens on H1? And no 3.7v option to make up for it? Oh man! Good thing I made sure to check. I want everything in the SC5 MkII, but in this form factor. Darn!
 

markr6

Flashaholic
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
9,258
A 200 cut in lumens on H1? And no 3.7v option to make up for it? Oh man! Good thing I made sure to check. I want everything in the SC5 MkII, but in this form factor. Darn!

Looks like the same thing but only lighter and smaller. Unless I'm missing something. Now I need to get the 53!
 

AVService

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
2,163
I am a little confused?
Did they just do away completely with the ability to use 14500 cells?
 

emarkd

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
1,193
Location
Georgia, USA
Surely these are typo's right? Its a new listing, maybe someone just copied and pasted too much of the text from the SC5 listings. The SC5x-series lights have always been wider voltage range, so AA or 14500, but they give up some max punch and efficiency for it. While the SC5-series lights are much more limited, only Eneloops, but more efficient for the trade-off. I highly doubt anything has changed with this release, because otherwise these new lights are not good releases.
 

Tixx

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
1,975
Ok, so a 220 lumen difference on H1. Below are the specs.

SC5w Mk II AA Flashlight Neutral White

High: H1 550 Lm
Operating Voltage Range: 0.7V - 2.0V

SC53w AA Neutral White Flashlight
High: H1 330 Lm
Operating Voltage Range: 0.7V - 2.0V
 

eraursls1984

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
1,434
Location
Tallahassee, FL.
Looks like the same thing but only lighter and smaller. Unless I'm missing something. Now I need to get the 53!
This is showing a lower max than the SC5. It's showing the same max as the H53. They said the reason that it (H53) had a lower high than the SC5 is because they didn't have the time to fit more components in the tight space for the boosted max output of the SC5.
 

emarkd

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
1,193
Location
Georgia, USA
There were about 15 edits this morning, this is what I noticed different after all of the edits.

Yeah I see it too, its all there. I just won't believe its not a typo until Zebralight says "No really, the SC53 lights are now AA only." or someone from here buys one and has it in their hands to check. It just makes no sense to me at all...
 

eraursls1984

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
1,434
Location
Tallahassee, FL.
Yeah I see it too, its all there. I just won't believe its not a typo until Zebralight says "No really, the SC53 lights are now AA only." or someone from here buys one and has it in their hands to check. It just makes no sense to me at all...
Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me that the only difference is smaller slightly smaller size and less output unless it is much cheaper. I doubt that since it's not one of the new budget lights. I would prefer better efficiency on Ni-MH, Lithium primaries, and Alkaline over lower efficiency and 14500 support though.
 

cyclesport

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
676
Huge disappointment for me. Had really hoped for a Hi-CRI light with 14500 support to avoid the battery sag issue on high w/NiMH 1.5v cells. Maybe I can snag another SC52w before they disappear forever? Damn it!
 

AVService

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
2,163
Huge disappointment for me. Had really hoped for a Hi-CRI light with 14500 support to avoid the battery sag issue on high w/NiMH 1.5v cells. Maybe I can snag another SC52w before they disappear forever? Damn it!


Lucky for me I did get a spare when I thought I had lost mine a few months ago!
Of course I found it in the car the next day?

But yeah if this is correct it is baffling why they would make a move like this.

On the other hand studying the website a little more these new versions do seem to offer the new G5,6,7 mode drivers too.
Maybe the driver is just a narrow voltage range model and this is the reason for the Voltage range change?
 
Last edited:

cyclesport

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
676
Lucky for me I did get a spare when I thought I had lost mine a few months ago!
Of course I found it in the car the next day?

But yeah if this is correct it is baffling why they would make a move like this.
Good move...now you've got a back-up. This has been my favorite 1 X AA platform for years and the only reason I can speculate for moving away from 14500 support is the liability fear of Li-ion's...at least in formats other than 18650's? Just a guess.
 

TCY

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 15, 2013
Messages
801
I'm convinced that the 330lm output is not a typo given the MSRP. Fellow CPFers have discussed in length on the H53 thread that the lack of 14500 support is because ZL is implementing the new programmable UI and there is not enough physical/software space for both features, and it seems like the SC53 line is no different. I'll pass and wait for the 18650 MK4 since I already have the H53Fc.
 

cyclesport

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
676
CPFers have discussed in length on the H53 thread that the lack of 14500 support is because ZL is implementing the new programmable UI and there is not enough physical/software space for both features, and it seems like the SC53 line is no different.
Thanks for the info, didn't know. Still kinda sucky for those of us who prefer the oompf of 3.7v.
 

emarkd

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
1,193
Location
Georgia, USA
I'm convinced that the 330lm output is not a typo given the MSRP. Fellow CPFers have discussed in length on the H53 thread that the lack of 14500 support is because ZL is implementing the new programmable UI and there is not enough physical/software space for both features, and it seems like the SC53 line is no different. I'll pass and wait for the 18650 MK4 since I already have the H53Fc.

I never thought the lower lumen count was a typo. The SC52 made less lumens than the original SC5 too. That's a physical constraint - boost drivers with wide voltage ranges are less efficient, so by focusing on just the one chemistry with the narrow voltage input in the SC5, they were able to really improve efficiency at the hardware level, not even a software issue (aside from maybe some smarter low voltage detection). I think the typo is in the voltage range. SURELY the SC53w will support both AA and 14500 chemistries.

But of course I could be wrong....
 

cyclesport

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
676
At least I hope the 4-flash "battery meter" of the SC53w is better calibrated than the 1st gen SC5w. I rarely get more than one or two flashes w/the SC5w, even on a freshly charged Eneloop Pro...kind of renders the battery status function useless. It's a feature I really find useful using 14500's in the SC52w, H52w, etc.
 

iamlucky13

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
1,139
It's not really fair to compare the compact version (SC53w/c) to the full-size version (SC5w/c). As was explained in the thread for the similarly tiny H53c, they just couldn't fit as capable of a boost driver in the H53 as the SC5:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...te-High-CRI!&p=5093190&viewfull=1#post5093190

Between the SC52 and the SC53, the difference is the loss of 14500 support. I suspect that was a matter of sharing some components between the SC5 II and SC53 drivers, and possibly also minor efficiency considerations related to the ability to deal with a wider range of input voltages, as emarkd suggested. If my speculation is true, then continuing 14500 support in the new generation while also providing the improved NiMH performance and multiple mode groups the new driver brings would have meant more development cost and longer time to market.

So they had to make a choice which compromise to accept.

It seems they decided the loss of 1 minute at 500 lumens on one of their two AA model lines wasn't likely to cost them many customers.

Besides, it seems like the opinion is split on CPF of whether turbo modes belong on most flashlights in the first place. I like the option, but others seem to feel the step-down takes away most of the utility of option and borders on deceptive marketing.

The debate about the value of turbo is particularly relevant when we're talking about a difference of only 300 lumens vs 500 lumens (1.7X). One my current lights has a 70 lumen and a 175 lumen mode (2.5X). When I switch between them, sometimes I do a doubletake trying to decide if it actually changed modes, because the perceptual difference between those ratios is so comparatively small.
 
Top